1. AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
2. It is COMPULSORY in Leeds for car drivers to go through red lights.
3. More cyclists are killed by cars jumping red lights than motorists killed by cyclists jumping red lights
4. We should switch to the system used in some countries where the cad drives is assumed to be responsible for the car/bike collision unless the driver can prove otherwise.

Equally, we could just assume the lunatic without insurance on two wheels is to blame unless proven otherwise.

Perhaps the best solution is simply to not apportion blame until the evidence has been examined, and then realise that sometimes, accidents are exactly that, and no-one is at fault.

The concept is based on the idea that if a pedestrian is hit by a cyclist you should assume the cyclist is to blame and look for reasons why not; then if a cyclist is hit by a car you'd assume the car is to blame and look for reasons why not; if the car is hit by a lorry you'd look for reasons not to blame the lorry; and finally if the lorry is hit by a bolt of lightning from the almighty you'd have to look for reasons why that's not because Washington State has allowed gay marriage.

There are plenty of equivalents in driving - if you go into the back of someone it'll be assumed to be your fault unless you can show otherwise, for example.

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability– a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unlessthe motorist can showthat the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driverto prove that he didn’t do anything wrong(or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.

Technically, it is strict liability or presumption of liability. This puts it far better than I can: presumption of liability– a rule that a motorist will be liable for a crash with a cyclist unlessthe motorist can showthat the cyclist was at fault....A presumption of liability would normally work by shifting the burden of proof. So after a crash, a cyclist wouldn’t need to prove that the driver did something wrong; it would be for the driverto prove that he didn’t do anything wrong(or that the collision was caused by the cyclist doing something wrong).Beyond that, the usual rules would normally apply.

"This is clearly wrong"Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. “The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-e...y-and-play-nice

"This is clearly wrong"Not so sure.I think its a good starting point. “The Netherlands and Denmark have a law of ‘strict liability’ to protect vulnerable road users from more powerful road users. Under this law, in crashes involving vulnerable road users, unless it can be clearly proven that the vulnerable road user was at fault, the more powerful road user is found liable by default. This makes Dutch and Danish drivers more cautious around cyclists and pedestrians and is responsible for their safe roads.” see http://www.cycling-e...y-and-play-nice

So you would be happy to go to prison if you killed someone on a bike.Even if it wasnt your fault?

In this country, “strict liability” is often portrayed as a very strong legal tool. In fact, it is very weak. It does not refer to criminal liability, only to civil liability — i.e., primarily to matters of insurance in the event of injury. It is often mistakenly believed that “strict liability” would be relevant in the cases of cyclist deaths in which the motorists involved have received no or lenient punishment. In fact, the personal consequences of strict liability for the motorist are minimal to none.